Sunlight Falls

Left the edge of the sheet film on there so you could see
what kind of film I was using. ;)

Posted by Paul Bracey on Wed, 12/14/16 01:26
[ Back to Index | Home | Previous Image | Next Image ]


Comments by Jan Bjorklund on Wed, 12/14/16 08:40

I do like the contrast in toning, the sense of texturing and how the sunlight highlighted falls are naturally framed by the darkened surroundings.

I find leaving the edge of the sheet film brings an interesting feel to the image. I had a program which allowed for the creation for an image to have this effect... the unfinished feel to the picture shows work in progress and helps to get a sense of the artist going through their work routine to create the perfect image.


Comments by Jeff Dye on Wed, 12/14/16 10:12

Nice silkey look to the falls. Maybe a tighter comp with less foreground. Moving up the
right side of the frame there's large chunks of rock. One is triangular. BTW thanks for
the crop suggestion for 'Crooked.' Now that I know it's there it a crop will save a return
trip and little is lost.


Comments by Dan Rubin on Wed, 12/14/16 12:05

It appears as if the water is improbably falling from a natural bridge, or
do my eyes deceive me.


Comments by Linda Frey on Wed, 12/14/16 19:11

Fun using a different camera. Heavy to carry through the woods?

Nice rock ledge falls.


Comments by Paul Bracey on Thu, 12/15/16 00:24

Hi everyone. Thanks for commenting.

Images that reveal what's beyond the framed subject, betraying in
part at least, the tools and techniques used to create the image
have always held a certain appeal to me, and the 4x5 lends itself
nicely to that kind of image. A print from a negative like this
would no doubt involve at least a tiny crop, but I liked the
dappled light on the rocks in the foreground and wouldn't want to
lose that. The waterfall itself is an undercut ledge, Dan, but
not a natural bridge. Linda, it's a pretty substantial kit once
the bag is loaded up. I bet the black cloth that's used to create
the dark space to focus on the ground glass weighs in at 5 pounds
all by itself. Using a Nikon D810 as a light meter doesn't make
it any lighter, but it's nice to have along since the 5 film
holders only give me 10 shots in the field. All told, with the
heavy tripod the camera bag probably weighs in at close to 40
pounds. Almost 40 years of lugging climbing equipment around has
proven to be pretty good training for this sort of thing.
Fortunately, it's a very comfortable camera bag! Shooting the 4x5
is a whole different game. It's VERY slow and deliberate. If
your process is anything like mine, you spend a lot more time with
the standard movements, manipulating the focal plane, which is not
a true flat plane when you're shooting with an old lens. You need
a jewelers loupe to focus on the ground glass. You have to focus,
find your focal plane, adjust the standards to manipulate the
focal plane, then refocus each time you move one or more of the
standards. It's a process. Then, once you've figured all that
out, you wait for the light, keeping your fingers crossed that it
will do something interesting, like getting that dappled look in
the foreground. When you notice the light come up and do it's
thing - CLICK - you take the picture. Then you check everything
out and notice you never set your shutter speed or aperture! If
you're lucky you didn't pull the slide out of the film carrier
either! Otherwise, you may have just blown one of the ten sheets
of film you brought along. (Fortunately, film is pretty
forgiving.) So you pull out the light meter, take your reading
and set up the lens for another shot, flip the film carrier, pull
the slide and wait for your next shot. If nothing else, it's a
lesson in mindfulness. And when it's all done, you get something
unexpected and different.

Thanks again!


Comments by Paul Bracey on Thu, 12/15/16 02:25

Here's a variation with different light & perhaps better focus & DOF.
Note especially the difference in the clarity of the leaves in the
top left part of the frame.


Comments by Ernest Cadegan on Thu, 12/15/16 16:27

FWIW I prefer the second version but the bar is so high on this type of
work that honestly they don't excite me.

Too daunting for me. Never mind the heavy kit.

I'm not sure what the post production is here but I think the essentials
of this craft lie there. There would be a lot of time investment in
shooting and post-production to get the needed skill level.

No doubt it was an interesting experiment though.


Comments by Jan Bjorklund on Thu, 12/15/16 16:53

I prefer the second image also for the clarity of detailing (as you point out with the leaves) but also there seems to be stronger sense of texturing 9especially from the scattering rocks in the immediate foreground).

Your description of the work required (both for the actual equipment that you were carrying and the precise attention needed to produce this image) takes my breathe away.


Comments by JP Zorn on Thu, 12/15/16 18:12

Yes, I think I like the greater DOF in the second one. And the
toning is nice. There's a lot of detail in there and that is what
this kind of camera and film is all about. It can provide a type
of super-realism - providing levels of detail that can't begin to
be taken in with the naked eye. I also like the very narrow DOF
that can be achieved with these things. You see this used in some
classic portrait work. How did you scan them? They look good. I
would have a problem with the weight. But there are a lot of
people still using these cameras (as well as 8X10s). It fills a
need for those who like film and like much information on their
negatives.